"30-32 cases against me; these are all the medals": Rahul Gandhi
Patna (Bihar) [India], May 15 (ANI): After a case was filed against Congress MP and Lok Sabha LoP Rahul Gandhi by the Darbhanga district administration for violating Section 163 of the CrPC, Gandhi referred to the cases as 'medals' and said he already has 30-32 cases against him.
He mentioned that he faces around 30-32 cases, which he viewed as a testament to his commitment to social justice and his willingness to challenge the status quo.
Speaking to the media in Patna, he said, 'I have 30-32 cases against me; these are all the medals.'
Despite the legal challenges, Gandhi remained resolute in his stance on social issues and continues to advocate for the rights of marginalised communities. He emphasised the need for a caste census to better understand and address social and economic disparities.
Further, during his address in Darbhanga, he advocated for implementing reservation laws in private colleges and universities, ensuring equal opportunities for marginalised communities.
said that he reiterated his party's commitment to social justice during his visit to Bihar, calling for the full implementation of reservation laws and the removal of the 50 per cent cap on reservations and called for removing the 50% cap on reservations, allowing for more representation and opportunities for underrepresented groups.
'...I talked about the caste census there (at the college hostel) and also said that the law which is there - reservation in private colleges and universities - that law should be implemented. Also, the 50% barriers in the reservation should be removed. These are our demands and we will fulfil them,' he said.
Ahead of this, the Darbhanga district administration said on Thursday that they would take action against him for the violation of Section 163 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Crpc).
The District Magistrate of Darbhanga told ANI, 'Darbhanga district administration to take action against Lok Sabha LoP and Congress MP Rahul Gandhi for violation of CRPC 163.'
The action came after Gandhi reached Ambedkar Hostel in Darbhanga despite being denied of permission by Bihar Police.
Meanwhile, Darbhanga JDU MP Sanjay Jha also questioned Rahul Gandhi's allegations that Bihar Police tried to stop him on his way to Ambedkar Hostel, stating that 'was any political meeting ever held in a hostel?'
Jha further said that it was given as permission was sought for the town hall.
'In Darbhanga, where he (Rahul Gandhi) had sought permission, the administration did not give permission because is any political meeting ever held in a hostel? But when his party later sought permission in the town hall, they were given permission...'
Rahul Gandhi has reached Bihar to launch 'Shiksha Nyay Samvad' in Darbhanga. (ANI)
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
18 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Trump administration asks Supreme Court to pause mass layoffs at Education Department
President Donald Trump's administration on Friday asked the Supreme Court to pause a court order to reinstate Education Department employees who were fired in mass layoffs as part of his plan to dismantle the agency. The Justice Department's emergency appeal to the high court said U.S. District Judge Myong Joun in Boston exceeded his authority last month when he issued a preliminary injunction reversing the layoffs of nearly 1,400 people and putting the broader plan on hold. Joun's order has blocked one of the Republican president's biggest campaign promises and effectively stalled the effort to wind down the department. A federal appeals court refused to put the order on hold while the administration appealed. The judge wrote that the layoffs 'will likely cripple the department.' But Solicitor General D. John Sauer wrote on Friday that Joun was substituting his policy preferences for those of the Trump administration. The layoffs help put in the place the 'policy of streamlining the department and eliminating discretionary functions that, in the administration's view, are better left to the states,' Sauer wrote. He also pointed out that the Supreme Court in April voted 5-4 to block Joun's earlier order seeking to keep in place Education Department teacher-training grants. The current case involves two consolidated lawsuits that said Trump's plan amounted to an illegal closure of the Education Department. One suit was filed by the Somerville and Easthampton school districts in Massachusetts along with the American Federation of Teachers and other education groups. The other suit was filed by a coalition of 21 Democratic attorneys general. The suits argued that layoffs left the department unable to carry out responsibilities required by Congress, including duties to support special education, distribute financial aid and enforce civil rights laws. Trump has made it a priority to shut down the Education Department, though he has acknowledged that only Congress has the authority to do that. In the meantime, Trump issued a March order directing Education Secretary Linda McMahon to wind it down 'to the maximum extent appropriate and permitted by law.' Trump later said the department's functions will be parceled to other agencies, suggesting that federal student loans should be managed by the Small Business Administration and programs involving students with disabilities would be absorbed by the Department of Health and Human Services. Those changes have not yet happened. The president argues that the Education Department has been overtaken by liberals and has failed to spur improvements to the nation's lagging academic scores. He has promised to 'return education to the states.' Opponents note that K-12 education is already mostly overseen by states and cities. Democrats have blasted the Trump administration's Education Department budget, which seeks a 15% budget cut including a $4.5 billion cut in K-12 funding as part of the agency's downsizing.
Mint
31 minutes ago
- Mint
Donald Trump administration pushes Supreme Court to scrap Department of Education, shifting control to states
Donald Trump's administration asked the US Supreme Court on Friday to permit it to proceed with dismantling the Department of Education, a move that would leave school policy in the United States almost entirely in the hands of states and local boards. The Justice Department asked the court to halt Boston-based U.S. District Judge Myong Joun's May 22 ruling that ordered the administration reinstate employees terminated in a mass layoff and end further actions to shutter the department. The department, created by a U.S. law passed by Congress in 1979, oversees about 100,000 public and 34,000 private schools in the United States, though more than 85% of public school funding comes from state and local governments. It provides federal grants for needy schools and programs, including money to pay teachers of children with special needs, fund arts programs and replace outdated infrastructure. It also oversees the $1.6 trillion in student loans held by tens of millions of Americans who cannot afford to pay for college outright. Trump's move to dismantle the department is part of the Republican president's campaign to downsize and reshape the federal government. Closing the department long has been a goal of many U.S. conservatives. Attorneys general from 20 states and the District of Columbia, as well as school districts and unions representing teachers, sued to block the Trump administration's efforts to gut the department. The states argued that the massive job cuts will render the agency unable to perform core functions authorized by statute, including in the civil rights arena, effectively usurping Congress's authority in violation of the U.S. Constitution. Trump on March 20 signed an executive order intended to effectively shut down the department, making good on a longstanding campaign promise to conservatives to move education policy almost completely to states and local boards. At a White House ceremony surrounded by children and educators, Trump called the order a first step "to eliminate" the department. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon announced plans on March 11 to carry out a mass termination of employees. Those layoffs would leave the department with 2,183 workers, down from 4,133 when Trump took office in January. The department said in a press release those terminations were part of its "final mission." Trump on March 21 announced plans to transfer the department's student loan portfolio to the Small Business Administration and its special education, nutrition and related services to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, which also is facing deep job cuts. Joun in his ruling ordered the administration to reinstate the laid off workers and halt implementation of Trump's directive to transfer student loans and special needs programs to other federal agencies. The judge rejected the argument put forth by Justice Department lawyers that the mass terminations were aimed at making the department more efficient while fulfilling its mission. In fact, Joun ruled, the job cuts were an effort to shut down the department without the necessary approval of Congress. "This court cannot be asked to cover its eyes while the department's employees are continuously fired and units are transferred out until the department becomes a shell of itself," the judge wrote. White House spokesperson Harrison Fields called the judge's ruling "misguided." The Boston-based 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on June 4 rejected the Trump administration's request to pause the injunction issued by Joun.
India Gazette
31 minutes ago
- India Gazette
Vice President Dhankar demands investigation into 'cash haul' incident involving Justice Yashwant Varma
Chandigarh (Punjab) [India], June 6 (ANI): Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar on Friday expressed concern over the recent cash controversy involving former Delhi High Court judge Justice Yashwant Varma. A substantial amount of unaccounted cash was discovered at Justice Varma's residence after a fire broke out in mid-March. The incident has sparked widespread debate and scrutiny. He questioned the absence of an investigation into the issue and why no FIR was registered for the same. The Vice President said, 'A painful incident happened in mid-March in Delhi at the residence of a sitting judge. There was a cash haul, obviously tainted, unaccounted, illegal. And unexplained!... It appeared in the public domain after 6-7 days....' Interacting with members of the Punjab and Haryana High Court Bar Association in Chandigarh today, the Vice-President further added, 'I have raised the issue. Ultimately, is that the answer if a motion is brought to remove a judge? If there has been a crime, a culpable act shaking the foundations of democracy -- the rule of law, why wasn't it punished? We have lost more than three months, and the investigation has not been initiated. Whenever you go to court, they ask why the FIR was delayed.' Earlier on March 22, the Chief Justice of India constituted a three-member committee, comprising Justice Sheel Nagu, Chief Justice of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Justice GS Sandhawalia, Chief Justice of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh, and Justice Anu Sivaraman, Judge of the High Court of Karnataka, to examine the allegations against Justice Yashwant Varma, a sitting judge of the High Court of Delhi. The committee concluded its investigation and presented its findings in a report dated May 3. Referring to the same, Dhankar questioned if the committee has 'a constitutional sanction.' 'Does the committee of judges have a constitutional sanction? Does it have statutory sanction? Can this report result in any outcome? Can this report, by itself, be actionable? If a judge removal mechanism is there, the Constitution says this removal mechanism can be initiated either in the Lok Sabha or the Rajya Sabha. This is the only way. Then this committee cannot substitute for an FIR investigation...,' Dhankar said. He stressed that 'even the President and Governors' are immune to prosecution 'till they are in office', and that no other body is provided with this immunity. The Vice President further hoped that an FIR would be filed soon. 'I find it very soothing and must congratulate you that the bar associations in the country are active on it. I hope an FIR is filed,' Dhankar stated. On April 5, Justice Yashwant Varma was sworn in as a judge of the Allahabad High Court under unusual and contentious circumstances. Departing from the customary public ceremony, his oath-taking was conducted privately, a decision that has garnered significant scrutiny. This development coincides with an ongoing investigation into allegations concerning the recovery of partially burnt sacks of cash at his residence weeks prior. Despite his formal induction, Justice Varma has not been assigned any judicial or administrative responsibilities, according to court insiders. His transfer from the Delhi High Court to the Allahabad High Court has been met with scepticism, particularly following the filing of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) before the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court. The PIL urged the Chief Justice to defer the swearing-in until the inquiry reached its conclusion. The controversy has elicited strong reactions from the legal community. The Allahabad High Court Bar Association has openly criticised the Collegium's decision, expressing its disapproval through a strongly worded letter addressed to the Chief Justice and other judges. The association condemned the appointment, declaring, 'We are not a dumping ground,' and called for enhanced transparency and accountability in judicial appointments. As the inquiry progresses, Justice Varma's future role within the Allahabad High Court remains uncertain. Legal experts and observers continue to monitor developments closely, as the situation has raised broader concerns regarding judicial integrity and the processes governing appointments within India's judiciary. According to the official website of the Allahabad High Court, Justice Varma obtained his Law degree from Rewa University in 1992 and was enrolled as an Advocate on August 8 of the same year. Throughout his career, he primarily practised civil law, handling cases related to Constitutional Law, Industrial Disputes, Corporate Matters, Taxation, Environmental Issues, and related fields. He served as special counsel for the Allahabad High Court from 2006 until his elevation in 2012. (ANI)
